To go along with this post, I bring you this. So the next time some tree hugger screams that Bush no signing onto the Kyoto Protocol was hurt the environment, direct them to that article. Maybe Europe isn't the world's savior after all.

2
comments:

I'm actually curious, does the Kyoto Protocol call for decreases in absolute emissions, or decreases in emission growth?There are two reasons I ask - firstly, because it's impossible to decrease absolute emissions straight away when you have an increasing population size, and secondly, if it IS based on projected increases, then articles like this one are misleading.

However, they're misleading anyway, because they say that Canada is running "a lot more than the United States", using percentages when in real figures it's a hell of a lot less. They're also misleading because they don't mention that America and Australia (the two non-signees) are the biggest single producer and the highest producer per capita of greenhouse gases, respectively). So while they seem to vindicate the US, when you really can't ("we didn't increase percentage-wise as much as them" when you're the biggest polluter doesn't mean much).